Adrianna W. posted this (her post is public, so if you are on FB, join in), so, you know… HT to her:
But the democratizing of book reviews, such that even self-published and low print-run books published by small presses can garner dozens of reviews by promoting “blog tours” or sending copies to readers with the expectation that they will post an Amazon review, has led not to better information for readers, but to a preponderance of inaccurate gushing.
John Hobbins spoke about this issue at the 2012 SBL Online Media and Publications section. You can read his paper here. I had hoped to see a follow-up section on this very topic, as his was a call rather than a diagram of what to expect. That section has yet to materialize.
Given the rise of online review platforms, such as Marginalia and Syndicate, not to mention the droves of bloggers who review, I have to agree that we need something of a standard. Of course, this will have to go both ways. Publishers have to be less willing to give out review copies if the reviewer doesn’t do a good job.
There is little doubt I have my favorite publishers, and not just because they give me books to review. I trust IVP, Kregel, Eerdmans, Baker, Fortress, and Energion because of their standards. I do not trust other publishers, and no I will not mention them. buT Y kNow, Don’t you, the not-ALE HOUSE i’m talking about? And likewise, I want them to trust me to give an honest review. Also, there are times I do my best to let some publishers, even passively, know that I do not need to be considered for some books. Seriously, I cannot handle much more of the inerrancy debate.
Some other thoughts…
I try to give good reviews based on the goal of the book and how effectively the author reaches it. For instance, in a recent review, I disagree with some of the author’s conclusions on X — however, that was not the goal of the book. I did mention that I disagreed with it, but I moved on. Sometimes, the goal of the book is simply not met and/or met in such a way as to cause some concern with the author’s cognitive capacity. American Patriot’s Bible, anyone?
Even with Kruger’s book about the canon, I tried to give an honest review and not because of the publisher and the awesome people there.
Sometimes, I end my reviews with “buy/read this book if X” so as to tell who would like the book.
The author of the above piece notes that she had received negative feedback from authors, publishers, and fans of those books she didn’t like. To be honest, unless the review needs a response (as a review of Chris Keith’s book did, once) authors and publishers should sort of mind their own business about reviews. Fans will follow you around. That’s the nature of the game. If you are perceived as bad mouthing a hero and you will be attacked. This is where the “block” feature comes in handy.
Further, the author notes “I recall one first-time author whose friends penned lavish review after lavish review.” This is not going to be fixed, except by ethical authors. I mean, friends aren’t going to always read the book as an unbiased observer — but because they are familiar with the author may more often than not hear the voice of the author while they are reading the book. Yes, friends may simply pen a review because of friendship, but I would suspect that lavish reviews are in part due to knowing the author. Publishers should work to not send authors’ friends copies. Authors will, however, do so.
Again, the ethical considerations for and in book reviewing needs to go both ways, or three ways.
But to the blogger’s point. I do not think the internet is killing the book review. I think it is helping to further knowledge, advance the Kingdom, and to serve the intellectual appetites of many. Just because you get some garbage with the gold doesn’t mean the book review is dead, in the server room, with the space bar.
We are seeking suitably qualified contributors to write entries on the following topics for AncientThought.com’s timeline on early Christian history. Please note that AncientThought is an academic resource, and potential contributors are expected to have (or to be working towards) a PhD in a relevant field to the topic that they are requesting to author, and to preferably have published in the area as well. All entries should be submitted no later than 1 November 2014. For more information please see our “Notes for Contributors“ handout.
To inquire about contributing an entry please e-mail the relevant editor whose name is listed below the title of each section. Many topics have already been assigned to contributors so not every topic that will be included in the project is listed below; however if you think that we are missing a topic that should be considered please feel free to contact us about its possible inclusion. Depending on the volume of response we receive we aim to inform successful applicants by the end of February 2014. Additionally, for scholars who wish to demonstrate “research impact” or audience engagement with their work we can provide a detailed bi-annual breakdown of visitors to the early Christian timeline.
The goal of Biblical Studies Online is to provide both biblical scholars and the interested wider public with ease of access to quality biblical scholarship, as it comes available online.
More and more biblical scholarship is being published open-access and online – not only in traditional book form, but in a variety of media, including videos and sound recordings.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to locate these resources on the internet, and sometimes difficult for those less experienced with biblical scholarship to distinguish worthwhile material from that which is inaccurate or even grossly misleading. And when it comes to the Bible, there is no shortage of the latter to be found. For this reason, Biblical Studies Online offers a gateway for the dissemination and publicizing of worthwhile open-access, online biblical scholarship.
To search for online Biblical Studies resources, please either click on the category in which you are interested, or use the search-box, in the column to the right.
With each “new year” people like to make changes. They vow this or that, to do this or that or not to do this or that; however, most fall back into their ways soon enough. The same goes with blogging. I’ve changed course once or twice on this blog, moving from fundamentalism to a better Christianity. I’ve also stopped with the heresy hunting, among other things. And, I’ve stopped with the RSS feed. I’ve turned that, the re-posting of stories that I like or catches my attention, to the blog’s Facebook page.
With all of these changes taking place naturally over the past few years, I don’t really need another change. I think such committals are usually a sign of the blogger and a lack of desire to continue blogging.
This year is going to be a busy one, I think. I have to start writing the dissertation. I have an offer to submit to two volumes in a rather popular and heavily academic Brill series (3 are out thus far). Further, I would like to submit to two SBL sections this year. Granted, one of those proposals, and if accept then one of those papers, will be the basis for one of the chapters submitted to the Brill series, but over all this will be a very busy year for me.
I am looking for dedicated contributors, of course. Still. Always. So, let me know.
Happy New Year! Welcome to 2014, the year we all finally keep our new year’s resolutions… here’s hoping! Before we take a look back at December and all the bloggy goodness it contained, I wanted to remind you of the most exciting thing happening in 2014: